renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net 1 day ago
If you already know NFS and it works for you, why change it? As long as you’re keeping it between Linux machines on the LAN, I see nothing wrong with NFS.
renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net 1 day ago
If you already know NFS and it works for you, why change it? As long as you’re keeping it between Linux machines on the LAN, I see nothing wrong with NFS.
Hawke@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Isn’t nfs pretty much completely insecure unless you turn on nfs4 with Kerberos? The fact that that is such a pain in the ass is what keeps me from it. It is fine for read-only though.
undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 1 day ago
If you’ve got Tailscale it’ll support direct encrypted tunnels over the LAN: I actually do this with Samba for Time Machine backups on macOS.
(I used to use split DNS so that my LAN’s router’s DNS server returned the LAN IP, and Tailscale’s DNS server returned the Tailscale IP. But because I’m a privacy geek I decided to make it Tailscale-only.)
nesc@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
It is, but nfsv3 is extremely easy to configure. You need to edit 1 line in 1 file and it’s ready to go.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Would be fine for designated storage networks that use IP whitelists.
Other than that, you kind of need user specific encryption/segregation (which I beliege Kerberos does?)